“Now, poor Mr Starmer seems unsure what to do next, apart from making the lives of ordinary people harder. As I have pointed out before, acquiring power is the only objective in the Party. Having purged his opponents, what is left for a politician like Starmer to do?”
Your articles (and this excellent comment in particular) make me think …
“Now, poor Mr Starmer seems unsure what to do next, apart from making the lives of ordinary people harder. As I have pointed out before, acquiring power is the only objective in the Party. Having purged his opponents, what is left for a politician like Starmer to do?”
Your articles (and this excellent comment in particular) make me think so often of “1984” where power was the only real purpose. It’s where we are today across nearly all of the west.
I don't think "power" was the only purpose in 1984, at least not at the level of individuals. Even the Inner Party people, though more privileged and "aware" of the truth (but also totally believing the truthfulness of the Party and the falsity of the reality that contradicts it per the dogma of doublethink), were themselves cogs in a big machine that was self-perpetuating without a clear purpose, other than chewing up everything to continue to exist. Everyone, even the Inner Party members, go along with the game because there is nothing else they can do (that goes anywhere), thinking that they enjoy rolling the boulder up and down all the time. (I always thought there was a peculiar nexus between Orwell and Camus, personally.,)
But, in a way, this is a more fitting description of the world today, isn't it?
We may be in danger of splitting hairs but worth recalling that O’Brien does tell Winston during his interrogation: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake…..Power is not a means, it is an end.” So power seems relevant, at least as a word.
However, I agree with your broad comment. At the level of the individual the cogs in the machine analogy becomes true. It also seems in “1984” that there may be no overarching human dictator but rather it is a self sustaining system driven by its own internal “logic”. In that respect Big Brother’s existence as a real person is left ambiguous as far I can tell. The world of “1984” is a machine. I agree.
That is also quite apt for our current system where the politicians are frequently little more than mouthpieces for what the “system” is driving and cannot alter it materially even if they wish to. In traditional capitalism we talk about the “Invisible Hand” as the driver of the system. We need a similar concept / analytical framework for how our state systems work.
It does raise an interesting question: what the heck is "power"? If there is someone or some group who is grabbing "power" for themselves, then it becomes fairly obvious. But in an institutionalized world, no single person really has much power.
They just have roles, some of which pay better. So they do what they are supposed to. And the more "institutionalized" the politics/society/etc. becomes, the roles become ossified: you do your thing and shut up. Certainly, there will be short term scheming and plotting, but nothing on a system-disrupting scale, at least not by the insiders, and only insiders are likely to have the means to do something about "it," whatever "it" is, and only if there's a big enough conspiracy, which is not likely to form successfully.... So, does anyone actually have "power" here?
“Now, poor Mr Starmer seems unsure what to do next, apart from making the lives of ordinary people harder. As I have pointed out before, acquiring power is the only objective in the Party. Having purged his opponents, what is left for a politician like Starmer to do?”
Your articles (and this excellent comment in particular) make me think so often of “1984” where power was the only real purpose. It’s where we are today across nearly all of the west.
I don't think "power" was the only purpose in 1984, at least not at the level of individuals. Even the Inner Party people, though more privileged and "aware" of the truth (but also totally believing the truthfulness of the Party and the falsity of the reality that contradicts it per the dogma of doublethink), were themselves cogs in a big machine that was self-perpetuating without a clear purpose, other than chewing up everything to continue to exist. Everyone, even the Inner Party members, go along with the game because there is nothing else they can do (that goes anywhere), thinking that they enjoy rolling the boulder up and down all the time. (I always thought there was a peculiar nexus between Orwell and Camus, personally.,)
But, in a way, this is a more fitting description of the world today, isn't it?
We may be in danger of splitting hairs but worth recalling that O’Brien does tell Winston during his interrogation: “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake…..Power is not a means, it is an end.” So power seems relevant, at least as a word.
However, I agree with your broad comment. At the level of the individual the cogs in the machine analogy becomes true. It also seems in “1984” that there may be no overarching human dictator but rather it is a self sustaining system driven by its own internal “logic”. In that respect Big Brother’s existence as a real person is left ambiguous as far I can tell. The world of “1984” is a machine. I agree.
That is also quite apt for our current system where the politicians are frequently little more than mouthpieces for what the “system” is driving and cannot alter it materially even if they wish to. In traditional capitalism we talk about the “Invisible Hand” as the driver of the system. We need a similar concept / analytical framework for how our state systems work.
It does raise an interesting question: what the heck is "power"? If there is someone or some group who is grabbing "power" for themselves, then it becomes fairly obvious. But in an institutionalized world, no single person really has much power.
They just have roles, some of which pay better. So they do what they are supposed to. And the more "institutionalized" the politics/society/etc. becomes, the roles become ossified: you do your thing and shut up. Certainly, there will be short term scheming and plotting, but nothing on a system-disrupting scale, at least not by the insiders, and only insiders are likely to have the means to do something about "it," whatever "it" is, and only if there's a big enough conspiracy, which is not likely to form successfully.... So, does anyone actually have "power" here?